I am writing to you about zero billing in healthcare. As a doctor, I see the problem as the fact that the invoice issued cannot in any way correspond to the actual situation. The payment to health institutions is in lump sums (mostly paid quarterly) and linked to 'coefficients'. The latter are (in the case of general practitioners) the sum of both the number of patients identified and the number of examinations and other services. Most of us exceed the number of quotients by a large margin, but it is certainly not theoretically possible for someone to provide services for a specific number of quotients. The correct calculation of the 'price of the service' is therefore only possible at the end, and certainly not on an ongoing basis; any ongoing invoice will contain incorrect information and as such may constitute an offence under Article 235(1) of the Penal Code.I have at least two other concerns.The first is that such an invoice gives the wrong message to the service user that the service (albeit very underpriced by a few euros) has actually been paid for, and that more examinations mean more money, which is of course not the case. While the state recapitalises the larger public institutions for (larger) losses, it does not recapitalise the private concessionaires. When I spend the money, I work for free for the rest of the year (or at my own expense, since I use, for example, the commercial reference laboratory Adrialab, which of course does nothing for free).The second concern is that the balance of the fictitious invoices at the end of the year would be significantly higher than the concession actually received, and the FURS could demand that I pay income tax on the difference shown (I am caricaturing to the extreme, but once we get past the nonsense, there are no longer any common-sense limits). I could probably, on reflection, come up with some other concerns.